SHO + SHOnut.com + salt = Damn Fast

[HoustinoJillian]

Well, I'm ditching the intake but it will be replaced with a machined plenum that will accept a variety of blowers and turbo's.

One of our issues is that the two heads on the Yamaha are not exactly spaced the same from motor to motor.


The SHO intake is excellent for NA applications in a street car, but once you go FI, it becomes a restriction to the airflow that the heads can handle.


Tom

but most importantly it'll be polished....... right?

 

[Shoaz]

Well, I'm ditching the intake but it will be replaced with a machined plenum that will accept a variety of blowers and turbo's.

And I bet I know who's makin' it...

The SHO intake is excellent for NA applications in a street car, but once you go FI, it becomes a restriction to the airflow that the heads can handle.

x2, and it's clear that if you want a lot of peak power n/a you need something more open (like this one and Todd's). For typical applications that us mortals see, though, it's still a fine piece of engineering.

 

[JEM]

Not sure. Tracer Racing out of SoCal has a lakester that recently hit 250mph with a carb'd SHO motor. They also hold the record for modified roadster with a carb'd SHO motor of ~172.

It's an Autolite inline 4-barrel from the '69 Trans-Am Mustang effort. There's two different sizes, a few of 'em got into the wild, they share some pieces with other Ford/Autolite carbs of the era and there's supposedly now a guy with tooling to make the bits that aren't so we may eventually see more on the road than ever got out the door in the '70s.

I'm fairly confident that even the most tweaked of stock SHO twin-tank intakes is a restriction past 300HP, and I'm inclined to guess that the best approach for an NA engine would be a six-throttle IR setup feeding off one large plenum, but I don't have the bandwidth to try it out.

 

[Shoaz]

It's an Autolite inline 4-barrel from the '69 Trans-Am Mustang effort. There's two different sizes, a few of 'em got into the wild, they share some pieces with other Ford/Autolite carbs of the era and there's supposedly now a guy with tooling to make the bits that aren't so we may eventually see more on the road than ever got out the door in the '70s.

Anybody remember what '69 TransAm Fords made hp-wise? I'm sure that would have been Mustangs, probably with a 351? That's a bit more displacement than a SHO, but it would give an idea of the power potential of the carbs.

 

[JEM]

Ford planned to run the race Boss 302 (which was a 302 bottom-end with a version of the 351C heads) with a 'Cross-Boss' plenum intake and the smaller of the two inline carbs (1-11/16in intake, 850CFM) but SCCA banned it - apparently it wasn't what they had in mind when writing 'single 4bbl carb' into the rules, or it wasn't close enough to what Ford was selling on production Boss 302s, or whatever - and they had to go back to a single Holley. I think ~500HP was fairly typical of the Trans Am racers.

 

[egroce11]

I wish I'd had more time this year at world of speed, but with the power problems I was having I didn't get to see this car. There is so much to look at that you miss seeing a lot. It looks like he did some very ompressive numbers.

Ernie

 

[Shoaz]

Ford planned to run the race Boss 302 (which was a 302 bottom-end with a version of the 351C heads) with a 'Cross-Boss' plenum intake and the smaller of the two inline carbs (1-11/16in intake, 850CFM) but SCCA banned it - apparently it wasn't what they had in mind when writing 'single 4bbl carb' into the rules, or it wasn't close enough to what Ford was selling on production Boss 302s, or whatever - and they had to go back to a single Holley. I think ~500HP was fairly typical of the Trans Am racers.

The ~500hp fits my recollection as well, but I wasn't sure whether it was with 302 or 351.

You'd have to spin a 3.0L at about 9185rpm to move as much air as a 302 (5.0L) at 5500rpm, so there's probably lots of margin left in those carbs with the V6. I've no clue how fast they were spinning the 302s in 1969, so that's just a wag.